Talk:People's Democratic Reform Committee

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 1 March 2014 by reviewer Ktr101 (talk · contribs). Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Thailand Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is about the People's Democratic Reform Committee, not the ongoing protest

.

Special thanks to Jr8825 (talk), without whom the article wouldn't be rated C from it's very start.

I replace the section "background" by "Formation and Role in 2013-14 Political Crisis". Content removed as it duplicate content from the "background" sectionFredtham59 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I think we should make the section more detailed giving nessessary information about the major events of the protests. (It does not need to be as detailed as the 2013-14 protests article but it should be detailed enough to explain chronological events.) LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good article must be well structured and focus on it's main title : The PDRC. Keep in mind that the article is not about the political crisis. Look at the article concerning the PAD it focus on PAD but not events triggered by the PAD. As this section is a summary if must stay that way. Agree to add few sentences as a summary on what happened since it's last edit but not details. Fredtham59 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, simple facts about the government dissolution, BKK shutdown, sites of the shutdown, major attacks on the PDRC will do. Note that these do not have to be detailed, a brief mention with major points will suffice. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the cited sources, it is mainly Mom Chao Chunchoem Yukhon who openly supports the PDRC, and who is a distant member of the royal family (Mom Chao is something like a third-degree prince). Princess Chulabhorn has posted photos on instagram that were "widely interpreted" as signs of supported. Mom Rajawongses are not considered royals, so M.R. Pridiyathorn Devakula cannot be classified as a member of the royal family (he is a great-grandson of Rama IV.)

Do one open (who is only a distant member) and one possible supporter warrant writing "some members of the royal family" were supporters of the PDRC? This sounds for me as if several members of the immediate royal family would support the movement for which we do not have evidence. --RJFF (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with removing the mention from the infobox. The certain individuals could be mentioned in the article body, with details. (I doubt we'll find any reliable source to back the "widely interpreted" claim.) Having the phrase in the infobox as such is grossly misleading, for the reasons given by RJFF. I've also commented at Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis#Royal family member's status of Juljerm --Paul_012 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I doubt we'll find any reliable source to back the "widely interpreted" claim."

technically: Help:Introduction to referencing/1

• a reliable source must be able to support the material. that is the case.[[1]]
• Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources.Pavin Chachavalpongpun, associate professor at Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan [[2]]
• "Widely interpreted" means there is a large consensus it is not a personal remark but from a reputable news backed by academic.

"Members of the royal family" in this article, is preceded by a wikipedia link Royal family that said: In some cases, royal family membership may extend to great grandchildren and more distant descendants of a monarch.

• Mom chao is translated as "His Serene Highness Prince/Princess"
• If not a member of the royal family the title will not be "Mon chao" but "Mom Rajawongse". "Mom Rajawongse" are commoners.Fred Tham ^{59 Do not bite, so talk !} 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was right to delete the whole paragraph as it is now 2 weeks I added a "need citation" tag without any improvement. Also the mention "Added PDRC rally sites please add references and details" is against wikipedia regulations WP:VERIFICATION.

• Democracy Monument (31st October 2013 - 12th January 2014) - main rally site since the beginning of the political protests. Dismantled prior to the occupation of Bangkok. Cited sources do not mention start and end date; no mention of main rally, no mention of closure date.

Conclusion: He dare enough to revert an edit in perfect accordance with wikipedia regulation without making significant improvement to justify it. Do not add anything to this section unless you have sources to backup your edit ! Fred Tham ^{59 Do not bite, so talk !} 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not split hairs: According to the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus, 'to affiliate' and 'to align' are synonyms. Therefore it suffices if a source says that the "Rubbish Collection Organisation" is "aligned" with PDRC to list it under "affiliated organisations". Please note that the PDRC is a loose network, not a formalised organisation. Any person or group can join and leave the "PDRC" anytime. There may be "PDRC membership cards" but you do not have to hold one to be considered a PDRC affiliate. And sub-groups do not have to sign a contract or similar with the PDRC "executive committee" to be considered a PDRC-affiliated group. Did NSPRT, Pefot or Dharma Army sign an act of accession when they joined the PDRC? --RJFF (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All parties you mentioned are publicly and mutually recognised each other that they are affiliated the PDRC since the beginning[3]. Signing contract is overly exaggerated, just an announcement from each side or together would be fine for this kind of loose network but there has been none in case of RCO as far as I know. People can join and leave PDRC anytime, but RCO never joined PDRC. Two links to PDRC are that the RCO head supports PDRC and they are both seen as royalists, so only these two similarities make it notable on PDRC page? Maybe yes, but not as an affiliated party for me. --Biglobster (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aim Sinpeng is a professional researcher. She has written her Ph.D. dissertation in poltical science about political movements in Thailand. Several international media have invited her as an expert analyst. I cannot think of a better source. All the other sources are just news reports written by journalists. This is a genuine scholarly article and still it is tagged as requiring a better source? --RJFF (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look again and I think you are right. I'll remove the tag. --Biglobster (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many reverts by an IP user(s) have taken place in the past few months. Due to the similarity of these IP addresses, I assume that these IPs are that of the same user. The IP addresses are:

• 180.183.129.73
• 180.183.129.161
• 180.183.130.167
• 185.56.163.164

You have reverted my edits 4 times without explaining any reason for your reverts. This behaviour is considered as disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT). Editors that continue to be disruptive will be blocked from editing. Please feel free to use this talk page as a place to explain your reasoning for your edits. We can also come up with a consensus and make changes accordingly. However, if you continue your unreasoned editing, I will have to request for administrator intervention. Thank you. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph gives the date of formation as "29 November 2013" but the summary box to the right says "October 29, 2013". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiphaethon (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any updates to add to this page on the current stance of the PDRC or its leaders who basically go the current unelected government in power? With Democracy in their name, do they nothing to say? From what I have seen in a search a lot of the old links to PDRC groups webpages abroad have been abandoned. Why is that? So much of what this group claimed as reasons for protests have been committed by the regime in power? Is there any place for criticism of the PDRC for what appears to be total hypocrisy? Or is the PDRC made a statement on this. If the PDRC has dissolved can we add some reflection on their hypocrisy? NaturalEquality (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]